OUR YOUTUBE VIDEOS FROM JECWWU CHANNEL -- 47 videos

Monday, November 20, 2017

Jonathan Zimmerman, Professor of
History of Education at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of
Education, will present a talk on “Censorship and Free Speech on College
Campuses in the Age of Trump,” at Western Washington University, Communications
Facility 120, on Friday, December 1st at 4pm.

At a time when campuses around the
country are facing questions about free speech in classrooms and on campuses,
when students silence views with which they disagree, and hate speech threatens
to produce violence, the University of Pennsylvania’s Jonathan Zimmerman will
help us think through how college campuses should think about free speech on
campus. Drawing from his new co-authored book, The Case for Contention:
Teaching Controversial Issues in American Schools, Prof. Zimmerman will provide
guidance for administrators, professors, students, citizens, and activists.

·When, if ever, should speech be limited?

·How do universities respond to ideas that are
rejected by scholars?

·Are universities “free speech zones” or do
they have an obligation to favor expert knowledge grounded in research?

JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN is Professor of
History of Education at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of
Education. In addition to The Case for Contention, he is author of Campus
Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (2016). He writes regularly for the New
York Review of Books, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other major
media outlets.

This event is
sponsored by the President’s Office, the Office of the Provost, the College of
Humanities and Social Sciences, the Karen W. Morse Institute for Leadership,
the Ray Wolpow Institute for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes
against Humanity, WWU Associated Students, and the History, Political Science,
Secondary Education, and Sociology departments.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Evelyn Wright, the associate editor of the Journal of Educational Controversy,
passed away on September 22nd. There will be a memorial service in
celebration of her life on Saturday, November 4th at 1pm followed by a
reception at St. John's Lutheran Church, 2530 Cornwall Ave, Bellingham WA.

Good News about Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American
Studies Program from the United States District Court District of Arizona!

By Leslie A. Locke and Ann E. Blankenship

It’s been a long road. But, the
court finally, after years of political struggle and legal debate, supported
what MAS students, parents, and teachers have always known--that the attempts
at squashing the program was backed by racism and white fragility (DiAngelo,
2011) for political gain. The court said as much in their August 2017
decision, where they noted the deconstruction of MAS was “motivated by a desire
to advance a political agenda by capitalizing on race-based fears” (p. 42), and
had little to zero basis in fact.

The Mexican American studies program (MAS) in TUSD had been
instituted as a response to a federal desegregation plan in effect in TUSD
since 1978. The MAS program, like its counterparts such as African
American Studies and Asian American Studies, was an educational program that
while open to any student, was centered on the Mexican American experience and
history in order to forge a connection between students and the curriculum.
The MAS program was successful as evidenced by student achievement and
outcomes.

However, a series of unfortunate
events, based on illogical, as well as thin and one-sided evidence, started
their course in 2006. We won’t go into great detail here in retelling
these events as much as been written about them (e.g., Acosta, 2013a/2013b;
Cabrera et al., 2014; Cammarota, 2009/2012/2014; Palos et al., 2011; Romero,
2010). In short, conservative politicians in Arizona (ironically theState
Superintendents of Instruction--those elected to best serve all students
in the state) dug their heels and set in with a laser focus on eliminating the
MAS program by making fantastical connections between it and communism, ethnic
chauvinism, rudeness, hate speech, and anti-Americanism, among other things.

Here is a summary of some of the legal history that guides us to
the most recent decision.

In 2010, the Arizona legislature
passed HB 2281 (codified into statute as Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) §§
15-111 and 15-112) prohibiting a school district or charter school from
including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that “(1)
Promote the overthrow of the Unites States Government, (2) Promote resentment
toward a race or class of people, (3) Are designed primarily for pupils of a
particular ethnic group, or (4) Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the
treatment of pupils as individuals.” ARS § 15-112(a). In his last days in
office as State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, concluded that
the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) Mexican-American Studies program
(MAS) violated ARS § 15-112 and ordered TUSD to either eliminate the program or
lose 10% of its state funding. Shortly thereafter, John Huppenthal replaced
Horne as State Superintendent. Huppenthal, claiming that he wanted all
the facts before enforcing Horne’s decision, hired Cambium Learning, Inc. to
conduct an investigation of MAS. Despite Cambium’s conclusion that MAS
did not violate ARS § 15-112, Huppenthal conducted an independent
investigation, determining that MAS did in fact violate the law. Facing a
10% reduction in state funding, which is essentially all of the district’s
liquidity, TUSD eliminated MAS.

In October 2010, teachers and
students of TUSD filed suit against Huppenthal as Superintendent of Public
Instruction claiming that ARS § 15-112 as enacted and enforced violated their
constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case
was tried and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that ARS
§ 15-112 was not unconstitutional on its face but left the door open for
subsequent challenges, noting “Even if § 15-112 is not facially discriminatory,
however, the statute and/or its subsequent enforcement against the MAS program
would still be unconstitutional if its enactment or the manner in which it was
enforces were motivated by a discriminatory purpose” (Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d
968, 977 (9th Cir. 2015)).

That brings us to the federal
court’s most recent review of the Arizona legislation and subsequent
elimination of the TUSD MAS program. On August 22, 2017, the United
States District Court (District of Arizona) issued its decision in González v.
Douglas. The action, brought by students and their parents against Diane
Douglas, the current Superintendent for Public Instruction for the State of
Arizona, alleged that Arizona’s enactment and enforcement of Arizona Revised
Statute §§ 15-111 and 15-112, eliminating the Tucson Unified School District
Mexican-American Studies program (MAS), violated students’ First and Fourteenth
Amendment Rights. After an exhaustive recounting of the facts of the
case, the District Court broke its conclusion of law down by counts, first
focusing on the Fourteenth Amendment claim then the First Amendment Claim.

In considering the Fourteenth Amendment claims, that the
enactment and enforcement of ARS § 15-112 was motivated by discriminatory
purpose, the court noted that the plaintiff’s had to prove that discrimination
was one but not the only purpose of enactment and enforcement. To
determine whether an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose was a motivating
factor in the enactment and enforcement of the legislation, the court looked at
direct and circumstantial evidence of intent, including: (1) the impact of the
official action and whether it bears more heavily on one race than another; (2)
the historical background of the decision; (3) the specific sequence of events
leadings to the challenged action; (4) the defendant’s departures from normal
procedures or substantive conclusions; and (5) the relevant legislative or
administrative history (González v. Douglas, 2017 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 141671, *39).

Relying largely on public comments made by Horne, blog comments
Huppenthal made under a pseudonym, and comments from other Arizona legislators,
the court concluded that Arizona’s enactment and enforcement of ARS § 15-112
were motivated by discriminatory intent. The court really focused on the
intent of Horne and Huppenthal as key players in the efforts to get ARS §
15-112 enacted and enforced. The court’s review of Huppenthal’s public
and private statements regarding MAS left little doubt of his intent to
discriminate. The court included dozens of Huppenthal’s quotes in
opinion. Some of the most egregious include statements Huppenthal made on
his blog under a pseudonym, which the court thought were most revealing of his
true state of mind:

No Spanish radio stations, no
Spanish billboards, no Spanish TV stations, no Spanish newspapers. This
is America, speak English.

I don’t mind them selling Mexican
food as long as the menus are mostly in English.

MAS = KKK in a different color.

The rejection of American values
and embracement of the values of Mexico in La Raza classrooms is the rejection
of success and embracement of failure.

The Mexican-American Studies
classes use the same technique that Hitler used in his rise to power. In
Hitler’s case it was the Sudetenland. In Mexican-American Studies case,
it’s Aztlán (internal citations omitted). (González, p. 26)

In addition to the intent of Huppenthal et al., the court
concluded that MAS’s enforcement bore more heavily on Latinx students who were
already the subject of historic discrimination in Tucson (as evidenced by its
desegregation court order still in effect today), that the sequence of events
were out of the ordinary, and that there was an illogical departure from normal
procedures. Of particular interest here was Huppenthal’s conclusion that
MAS violated ARS § 15-112 despite the Cambium report to the contrary, despite
his having no first hand information about the actual curriculum taught in MAS
classes. Overall, the court found sufficient evidence of racial animus
against Latinx student in the enactment and enforcement of ARS § 15-112 by
Horne, Huppenthal, and others, noting:

The sequence of events included no
attempt to conduct a good faith, objective evaluation of the MAS program’s
teachings and efficacy, other than the Cambium audit, which is rejected out of
hand. Instead, in enacting the statute, the legislature, Horne, and
Huppenthal relied on and presented biased accounts of the MAS program that were
based on limited evidence and laced with terms fairly understood to refer negatively
to perceived traits of Mexican Americans. (González, p. 28).

Given the total weight of the evidence presented, the court
further concluded that Horne and Huppenthal did not testify credibly regarding
their own motivations at enactment and enforcement of ARS § 15-112.

Relying on the same body of evidence, the court ruled that the
enactment and enforcement of ARS § 15-112 also constituted a violation of the
students’ First Amendment right to receive information because the elimination
of MAS was not reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns, but
instead racial animus. The court concluded that Horne and Huppenthal’s
were motivated by political gain, capitalizing on voter’s race-based fears,
rather than pedagogical concern.

The court will determine an appropriate remedy after parties
have an opportunity to file briefs and replies, hopefully by the end of the
calendar year.

One of the many
unsettling aspects of this strange, and sad but true story, is that it was
sparked and supported by those who were elected to serve in the best interests
of all students in TUSD. Horne, Huppenthal, and their political
allies have shown a complete lack of interest in the welfare of students in
TUSD. Moreover, they outrightly targeted Latinx students.
Importantly, while the original MAS program has been successfully
suppressed and marginalized since 2010, thousands of students have been denied
the opportunity to take advantage of a highly successful educational program
tailored to the Mexican American experience and history. They were denied
all the benefits those classes were known to provide--including increased
achievement and positive impacts on graduation. Horne and Huppenthal failed to
make any efforts to understand the curriculum (the court confirmed that they
indeed never visited a MAS class, reviewed the program curriculum, and rather
cherry picked texts and presented them out of context). These
politicians’ willingness to deny students, not just those who would have been
in MAS program, but all the students of TUSD, access to proven successful
educational programming and opportunities to achieve, should not be disregarded
or forgotten. They openly and unabashedly misused their political power.
And they so hypocritically called MAS students “rude.”

Congratulations to the plaintiffs
and to all who fought this fight and endured this long and often absurd road.
You have been heard, finally. We look forward to reading about how
the excellent MAS teachers will use this immediate experience to study and
explore institutional racism, systemic bias, the political process, white
supremacy, and white fragility. While it was an unfortunate series of
events, we image they will make great curriculum exhibits.

References

Acosta, C. (2013a). Dangerous minds in Tucson: The banning of
Mexican American Studies and critical thinking in Arizona. Journal of Educational
Controversy, 8(1), 1-18. Retrieved from

Romero, A.F. (2010). At war with the state in order to save the
lives of our children: The battle to save ethnic studies in Arizona. [Special issue: Defending
ethnic studies in Arizona]. The Black Scholar, 40(4), 7-15.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

I am saddened to announce the passing of Evelyn
Wright on September 22, 2017.Evelyn was
the associate editor of our journal since its inception and a member of the
English Department at Western Washington University.She also taught many of the English methods
courses for teachers at the Woodring College of Education before retiring.

For Evelyn, preparing prospective teachers was
more than providing teaching methods.It
involved helping teachers to work with a text on a deeper level that enabled
them to construct experiences for their students’ own struggle with meaning.She also explored the influence of policy and
the courts on the teaching of reading.In “School English and Public Policy” (College English, Volume 42,
Number 4), Evelyn analyzed the Ann Arbor, Michigan court decision on the use of
ebonics or black English in the teaching of reading against an historical
background of the conceptions of literacy and school language policies in
American schools. Her analysis raised serious social and cultural questions on
the implications of these policies for rethinking notions of equal educational
opportunity and social justice.Long
after she retired, she would continue to provide lectures on the case for our
students with her visits to our classes.

The scope of her understanding brought a rich experience
to all the students she touched over the years, a legacy that continues in the teaching of future generations of teachers. Evelyn gave me an enriched understanding of
the power of literature and a friendship that spanned some forty years.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Editor: The Journal of Educational Controversy
welcomes the new dean of the Woodring College of Education, the home of the
journal.Dean Horacio Walker shares
some of his thoughts and background in the interview below.

1.What was it about the Woodring
College of Education that attracted you?

I am attracted to Woodring’s vision of honoring diversities and promoting
social justice. I believe that inequality is the most important problem facing
today’s world. Most violence and discrimination affecting people in different countries
and cultures is rooted in unequal rights and opportunities. Without a vision on inclusion of all people in
education and development opportunities, these problems cannot be properly addressed.
I believe that colleges of education are in a privileged position to influence
a social justice agenda around the globe.

I was also interested in the faculty and the programs they have developed
for the College. A few years ago, I was impressed with a presentation done by a
small delegation from Woodring at a conference on field experiences in teacher
education held at the Universidad Diego Portales in Santiago, Chile, where I
was dean.It was clear from the
presentation, that the College valued strong partnerships with the community
and wanted the prospective teachers to have genuine experiences in diverse
contexts. I thought that the vision and the mission of the College was
reflected in the way they structured and organized the process through which the
preservice teachers learn how to teach
and in the type of partnerships they foster with school districts and
individual schools.

2.What do you believe are the most
important challenges facing education and Schools of Education in the political
and social context of our time?

Education’s most important challenge today is removing barriers that
prevent learning and the development of the full child in schools. There are
financial barriers, such as having food on the table and appropriate housing.
There are also socio-emotional barriers, such as unsupportive family and school
environments for children and young people. There are cultural barriers, such
as beliefs about gender, race and sexual orientation. There are educational
barriers, such as unequal access to relevant and quality learning and non-inclusive
school environments that induce negativity among the students and reproduce
inequality in everyday practices. There are also political barriers, such as
top-down policies that inhibit partnerships between schools, the family and the
community.

Colleges of Education generally address some of these barriers. However, I
believe that a systemic approach to education is needed to understand how all of
these barriers are connected.In
Woodring we are privileged to have academic programs preparing students in teacher
education and also in health and community studies which provide different perspectives
on how systems work.

3.Could you share your basic philosophy
of education with us?

My basic philosophy of education is reflected in four main principles.
First, education is lifelong learning which must focus on the whole person,
fostering conditions for social, emotional and cultural development. Second, learning must be supported by a system
of interrelated factors, i.e. the family, the local community, the state and
the federal government. Third, educators must work to remove barriers that
prevent all children and youth from accessing and succeeding in educational
opportunities. Teachers and schools should have the highest expectations for
all. Fourth, education needs to be a public reference of inclusion and diverse
communities. Public schools are best suited to prepare new citizens to
contribute for an equitable and democratic society. It is a moral imperative
that governments must protect and support public education.

4.What would you want our students,
colleagues and readers to know about you as a person?

I grew up in the capital city of Santiago, Chile. Two childhood
experiences influenced my vision on education and inspired me to work in the
field my entire career.

Growing up I experienced the effects of socioeconomic segregation.
Families were grouped in neighborhoods according to their common background,
and children were grouped in schools where everyone looked similar.

In 10th grade, I was able to participate in a service-learning
program organized by my high school. I travelled to the south of Chile to help shantytown
dwellers build their own homes with government financial support. For the first
time I met several people who grew up in
a different part of the country, who had barely made it through elementary
school and who could not access secondary education. I was not ready to understand why.I remember vividly hearing them say to me
over and over, “I want you to work hard, go to college - don’t go through what
we have experienced.” Those words have stayed with me forever. As I went
through college, I understood that they were victims of social and economic
oppression that had condemned their families to poverty.

In 1973, during my first year in University, President Salvador Allende, who
was democratically elected in 1970, was overthrown by a military coup that
ruled the country through the early 90s. I lived my entire university years under
a curfew - hearing shootings at night and listening to horror stories about
people disappearing and being tortured. Yet I was prepared to teach in that
environment. However, I was not able to get a job in a public school, as all
were under control of the military regime. Instead, I began my career in non-formal
education, supporting community-based organizations struggling to help
themselves address basic needs.Those
experiences, framed by Paulo Freire’s work, shaped my basic philosophy of
education all during my career, in different contexts and institutional
settings.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Colleges and
Universities Take a Stand in Support of their DACA Students

Many
colleges and universities are taking a stand in support of their DACA Students
in light of the Trump Administration’s rescinding of the Obama 2012 executive
order forDeferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program and the phasing out of
it over the next six months.

Here in
Washington State, the presidents of Washington`s six public baccalaureate
colleges and universities, 34 community and technical colleges, 10 members of
the Independent Colleges of Washington, as well as the 10 members of the
Washington Student Achievement Council issued a statement of support for DACA.

The Association
of American Colleges & Universities also issued the following response
along with some additional links and resources:

AAC&U Responds to
DACA Decision

Tuesday,
September 5, 2017

Last week,
AAC&U joined three dozen other higher education organizations as
signatories to a letter urging President Trump to preserve the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and fulfill his promise to treat the
Dreamers “with heart.” We are disappointed by the recent decision made by the
Trump Administration to end the DACA program. AAC&U will continue to work
with our member institutions to advocate for immigration policies and programs
that ensure protections for the approximately 800,000 individuals who
contribute greatly to the schools in which they are enrolled, the communities
in which they live, and the democracy they serve.

The decision
to end DACA, compounded with recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia, and
tensions felt on campuses across the country, makes even more critical the role
of our institutions not only in shaping the agenda for higher education, but in
serving as a national voice on issues of racial and social justice. AAC&U
stands alongside its 1,400 members in reaffirming a deep and abiding commitment
to the values of diversity, inclusion, and equity as critical to the well-being
of our democratic society and as the cornerstones of excellence in liberal
education.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

In these
lazy days of summer, we might pepper it with some experiments in thought.Can you think of anything that our first
president, George Washington, might have in common with the current occupant of
that position, Donald Trump?Well, there
actually is something that both of them have in common.When Washington was commander-in-chief of the
Continental Army, he nobly declined a salary and only requested that
his expenses be covered, something that the Continental Congress may have
regretted.In place of his $500 a month
salary, Washington presented them with a meticulous account of expenses that some
claim amounted to $160,074 while others claim was closer to $449,261.51,
depending on how you calculate monetary amounts prior to the nation state.
Still it was an amount considerably higher than a salary of $48000 over that eight-year
revolutionary war period. "As to pay, Sir," he wrote, "I beg leave to Assure
the Congress that no pecuniary consideration could have tempted me to have
accepted this Arduous employment at the expense of my domestic ease and
happiness, I do not wish to make a profit from it: I will keep an exact Account
of my expenses; these I doubt not they will discharge and that is all I
desire." To view a list of expenses that Washington recorded, check out
the records at the Library of Congress. Another account is located at the
National Archives in RG 56, General Records - Treasury Department.

Our current
president, Donald Trump, has likewise offered to decline his salary.And like Washington, the government and
taxpayers are covering expenses, including a widely reported figure in the
millions for his frequent visits to his weekend resorts. No one knows what the final accounting is
going to be. Thus, Trump joins two other wealthy presidents who refused to take
a salary – John Kennedy and Herbert Hoover.Question: If the money is donated to a charity or to the Treasury Department,
can it be claimed as a deduction for charitable contributions on his taxes--- a
question simply not applicable for our comparison with our first president.

But what do
these musings have to do with a blog dedicated to education.Well, for one thing, Trump’s second quarter
salary was just donated to the Department of Education for the furthering of
stem education.The donation that
amounted to $100,000 was accepted by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos who
praised the president for his generous gift that she says has shown his
“commitment to our nation’s students” so all have “access to a high quality
education.”Of course, Trump’s recent
budget recommendation will also result in a 13.5 percent spending cut to the
department that amounts to $9.2 billion dollars.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

The article,
“Ex-school official: Radicals taught Mexican-American program,” written by Astrid
Galvan of the Associated Press appeared in a number of newspapers today including
the New York Timesand the Washington Post.

Of course,
the headline is true in so far as the idea that radicals taught the Mexican-American
program in the schools of Tucson was claimed by an ex-school official, but
might be misleading if you don’t question the truth of the assertion by the
former school official.The Journal of
Educational Controversy has published a number of articles on the banning of
the Mexican American curriculum in Tucson, Arizona.After reading the articles in the Washington
Post or the New York Times, take a look at one of our journal’s articles on
what actually occurred inside one of those classrooms.You can find the article, “Dangerous Minds inTucson: The Banning of Mexican American Studies and Critical Thinking in Arizona,”
by Curtis Acosta, a former teacher in the school district, in our 2014 Volume 8
issue.The theme for that issue was, “WhoDefines the Public in Public Education.”

The Southern
Poverty Law Center this week denounced a letter signed by 10 state attorneys
general as “cruel and heartless” because it asks the Department of Justice to
phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Under DACA, which
was created by the Obama administration, the federal government has granted
reprieves from deportation to nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who
arrived in the United States as children.

“Attorneys general
from 10 states are egging the federal government on to be more cruel and
heartless in its approach to immigration,” said Naomi Tsu, SPLC deputy legal
director. “The letter requests that the Department of Justice revoke protections
for immigrant youth and begin targeting for deportation these young people who
have grown up as Americans.

“These attacks will
prevent children, many of whom know no other home, from working legally and
reaching their full potential. If the Trump administration follows through on
this request, they will be responsible for further pushing immigrant
communities underground, making communities less safe, less prosperous and more
divided.”

The 10 state
attorneys general who signed the letter are Steve Marshall of
Alabama, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Derek
Schmidt of Kansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Alan
Wilson of South Carolina, Ken Paxton of Texas, Herbert Slatery III of
Tennessee, and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia.

Idaho Gov. C.L.
“Butch” Otter also signed the letter.

The SPLC has fought
for young immigrants in danger of being deported, in spite of DACA. In March,
the SPLC, along with others, won the release of Daniela Vargas from the custody
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Vargas, a
22-year-old DACA recipient, was detained by ICE agents shortly after speaking
at a Jackson, Mississippi, press conference on March 1 about her hope that she
and other young immigrants could remain in the United States and contribute to
the country they’ve long called home.

Editor: Here is a link to the letter sent by the ten attorneys general to the Justice Department.

For an informative and sensitive article published in our journal, read: "A DREAM Deported: What Undocumented American Youth Need their Schools to Understand," in our Volume 7 issue at http://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol7/iss1/10/

Friday, June 9, 2017

In 2012 the Washington state Supreme Court ruled in
the McCleary decision that the state constitution is being violated. K-12 public
schools in Washington are underfunded in direct violation of the state’s constitution
which states that “It
is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within
its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color,
caste, or sex.”[1] 2014 found the issue still far
from being resolved and the justices held the state in contempt for failure to
progress with legislation that will fully fund public schools. In 2015 the
court added a $100,000 per day fine against the state. Instead of passing
legislation that would resolve this issue in 2016, Senate Bill 6195 was passed.
This bill set up a task force to make recommendations in the 2017 legislative
session, after collecting data on school salaries and levies. This fine currently
exceeds $55 million. Tom Ahearne, the lead attorney in the
McCleary v.
State of Washington case, spoke on Wednesday, May 3 at the Bellingham High
School Performing Arts Center, and explained that the fine isn’t real money.
The legislature will never actually pay this amount and it is more a symbol of the
weight of the issue and the seriousness of the court’s decision. Ahearne laid
out the possibilities we have in store for us in the near future. If the legislature
fully funds K-12 public education then we all simply move on. If they fail to “amply”
fund education then the courts will need to use a stronger sanction than the moderate
contempt fine. The next sanctions could beclosing schools or
threatening to dock legislators’ salaries.

The
court ruling states that the legislature must have fully implemented funding by
September 1, 2018. This means the legislature has until the final adjournment
of the 2017 legislative session, which ends on June 30, 2017. So, the current
legislative session has three weeks to complete a budget that fully funds public
K-12 education in the State of Washington. This is something they have been
unable to do for nearly five years. Check back on June 30, 2017 for an update.

Translate

Recent Page Views

Followers

Search This Blog

Purpose of our Blog

This blog is an extension of the Journal of Educational Controversy.It aims to promote a conversation between educational professionals and the general public in a pluralistic, democratic forum. Its main purposes are to:

1.Enable authors whose articles were published in the journal to update their ideas.

2. Inform readers of current controversies in education.

3. Announce future issues of the journal and events associated with the journal.